Gulley v. Lapaglia et al

Filing 106

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 85 Motion to Take Deposition from Nancy Jones, R.N. The parties SHALL work diligently to coordinate a date and time for this deposition to take place before discovery closes on January 15, 2014.Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 01/02/2013. (KAW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
WESLEY ANTWAN GULLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL A. LAPAGLIA, M.D., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:12-CV-371
(BUNNING/GUYTON)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
On December 17, 2013, the parties appeared before the undersigned to address certain
pretrial motions including Plaintiff’s First Motion to Allow Deposition Examination of Parties
and Other Witnesses [Doc. 85]. Therein, Plaintiff moves the Court to allow his counsel to
continue a deposition examination of Defendant Nancy Jones, R.N. Specifically, he moves the
Court to allow him to examine Ms. Jones with regard to whether other patients were threatened
with paralysis and digital rectal examinations. [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff also requests that his counsel
be allowed to examine other witnesses on this topic. [Id.].
The Defendants1 oppose the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Allow Deposition Examination. At the
hearing, Defendants argued that, while Plaintiff contends that he needs additional information
about Methodist Medical Center’s policies, he really just wants additional information about the
paralysis and digital rectal examination performed on Felix Booker. Defendant maintains that

1

Only Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge and Tammy Jones, R.N., remain as defendants in this case.

Plaintiff is attempting to make inroads around a stay of discovery imposed in Mr. Booker’s case:
Booker v. Lapaglia, Case No. 3:11-CV-126.
The Court has considered the scope of discovery pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure along with the procedural posture of both the instant matter and Booker v.
Lapaglia, Case No. 3:11-CV-126. The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s First Motion to Allow
Deposition Examination of Parties and Other Witnesses [Doc. 85] is well-taken, in part. The
Court finds that Plaintiff may examine Ms. Jones regarding any similar incidents she witnessed
that are “relevant to any party’s claim or defense,” in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). There
is no indication that the stay of discovery in Booker v. Lapaglia, Case No. 3:11-CV-126, was
meant to be a universal stay of all similar matters, and the Court declines to interpret the stay as
being so expansive.
Accordingly, the Court will permit a supplemental deposition of Ms. Jones, not to exceed
three (3) hours in duration. The parties SHALL work diligently to coordinate a date and time
for this deposition to take place before discovery closes on January 15, 2014. If counsel for Ms.
Jones has a good-faith belief that questioning in this deposition exceeds the scope of discovery,2
counsel may contact the chambers of the undersigned for a telephonic conference to address an
oral motion for protective order.
To the extent Plaintiff’s motion seeks specific leave to conduct other depositions, it is
DENIED AS MOOT. The scope of discovery in this case is limited only by the Scheduling
Order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff may undertake any depositions that fall
within the scope of discovery found in Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
comply with Rule 30 and any other applicable provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
However, all discovery must be completed on or before January 15, 2014.
2

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
2

In sum, the Plaintiff’s First Motion to Allow Deposition Examination of Parties and
Other Witnesses [Doc. 85] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as stated above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
/s H. Bruce Guyton
United States Magistrate Judge

3